In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed.

+

In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed. --[[User:Michael Gray|Michael Gray]]

:That is not a legitimate failing of the argument - it is an equivocation. The 'atheist argument' is not claiming that the physical objects of worship do not exist, but that the divine qualities attributed to them have not been demonstrated.

:That is not a legitimate failing of the argument - it is an equivocation. The 'atheist argument' is not claiming that the physical objects of worship do not exist, but that the divine qualities attributed to them have not been demonstrated.

Line 14:

Line 14:

:For brevity, we should agree that people call something a god only because it is attributed with some uniquely divine or supernatural qualities. It is those qualities that must be demonstrated. Less that, we must simply find a word other than "god" to make our argument, but the point is not defeated. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 16:39, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

:For brevity, we should agree that people call something a god only because it is attributed with some uniquely divine or supernatural qualities. It is those qualities that must be demonstrated. Less that, we must simply find a word other than "god" to make our argument, but the point is not defeated. --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 16:39, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

+

+

:I second Jaban's argument. The "idea of god" clearly exists. The "idea of god" is no more incompatible with atheism than the "idea of Star Trek" or the "idea of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal". The relevant difference is that neither Star Trek nor the Bugblatter Beast are considered to be factual depictions. Theists, by definition, consider the idea of god to be factual. The atheist argument does not challenge the existence of the "idea of god"; it challenges that this idea is factually true. -- [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 09:59, 11 May 2010 (CDT)

== Other Gods ==

== Other Gods ==

If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:59, 11 May 2010

Physical existence of objects called god

I have yet to spot a section that refers to god(s) that can be demonstrated to exist now, let alone to have existed in the past,
vis:

Sol (the sun)

Prince Phillip

The Emperor of Nihon

...etc, and so-on.

In my mind, to omit these gods, who clearly exist, is a failing in the atheist argument that needs to be addressed. --Michael Gray

That is not a legitimate failing of the argument - it is an equivocation. The 'atheist argument' is not claiming that the physical objects of worship do not exist, but that the divine qualities attributed to them have not been demonstrated.

For brevity, we should agree that people call something a god only because it is attributed with some uniquely divine or supernatural qualities. It is those qualities that must be demonstrated. Less that, we must simply find a word other than "god" to make our argument, but the point is not defeated. --Jaban 16:39, 10 May 2010 (CDT)

I second Jaban's argument. The "idea of god" clearly exists. The "idea of god" is no more incompatible with atheism than the "idea of Star Trek" or the "idea of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal". The relevant difference is that neither Star Trek nor the Bugblatter Beast are considered to be factual depictions. Theists, by definition, consider the idea of god to be factual. The atheist argument does not challenge the existence of the "idea of god"; it challenges that this idea is factually true. -- Rival 09:59, 11 May 2010 (CDT)

Other Gods

If there are such arguments demonstrating te existence of those specific gods, then let us know, so we can dissect them. However, a very little amount of people do believe in these gods and a demonstration of their non-existence would be unnecessary; anyway, we do have arguments against the existence of all possible gods. You can spot these arguments in the atheology center, "arguments against the existence of God".--wissam hemadeh 04:25, 10 May 2010 (CDT)